On the relation of Faith and Reason in the Doctrine of Creation; a preliminary analysis.

 

"If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it by God, let him be anathema ... If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by outward signs and that, therefore, men ought to be moved to faith solely by each one's inner experience or by personal inspiration, let him be anathema."

• The First Ecumenical Council at the Vatican.
  

 

A post authored by a friend of mine recently turned up on my news feed on a subject that I have discussed much about privately. This issue is not so hotly discussed and debated in the United Kingdom as it is in the United States, but some clarity would of course be helpful. If it was not clear from the title of this post; the topic is that of Creationism vs. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, where do we stand as the Faithful of the Holy Mother Church? Explicit in the dogmatic canons there is no specific position taken, implicitly though there do appear to be some problems that need to be addressed. I will also briefly outline an alternative position to those normally framed; that which is broadly consonant with the Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas, and the Philosophers of the Thomistic school.

    As we stand at the brink of the chaotic landscape that is the debate on the Doctrine of Creation, it is important to begin with a definition of terms. Therefore, I will define the three major narratives in turn and make note of the schools that said definition covers.

1. Creationism= the theological thesis that God directly created the Universe in the finite past-time, stressing adherence to the Sacred Scriptures and Genesis Creative Account. This definition includes both Young Earth and Old Earth forms of creationism, as philosophically they are near identical.
   
2. Intelligent Design= a pseudo-scientific/philosophical thesis that we can detect "design" in nature that must of had, by necessity, a creative intelligence as its cause. Usually achieved through analysis of biological phenomenon.
   
3. Evolution= it must be noted that I use the term Evolution as synonymous with "naturalist evolution", the usual staple mark being random (or chance) mutations that survived as it contributed to the survival of the species.
   

As to the first; Creationism in all its forms is highly problematic. Young Earth Creationism necessitates a fundamentally literalist reading of the Sacred Scriptures and the Creation accounts (yeah, there are two c. 1 & 2) as contained in the Book of Genesis. This necessitates that we deny the evidential accounts of Physics and Biology in respect to what is their object of study, and reject the conclusions of these endeavours of the human reason. This is where I make the purposes behind the quotation at the top of the page abundantly clear; young earth creationism requires that we deny the reliability and the validity of the natural light of human reason. This would be in direct contravention of Church dogmatic teaching as solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council. Therefore; Young Earth Creationism is to be rejected as false, based on the teaching of the Holy Mother Church.

    There is a second version of Creationism termed 'Old Earth Creationism'; which deviates from some of the tenants of its Young Earth counterpart. I'm unclear how exactly to distinguish OEC from Intelligent Design without making the distinction blurry, however it appears to centre on evolution. The rejection of evolution would make OEC ultimately theologically questionable for the same reason as the previous thesis. Developmental Creationism appears to be indistinguishable from Intelligent Design, and as a Philosophical thesis shall be examined next.

As to the second; I am unsure exactly what methods to employ in offering a brief critique of Intelligent Design. This is due to ID theorists' refusal to stipulate whether they are offering an empirical (in the sense of the natural sciences) critique of naturalism, an argument for the existence of God, or another form of argument. What exactly the aim of the theorist is appears to be decided by the composition of the audience to which they are presenting their paper. This wouldn't be an issue if it was clear that the argument gave us any of the conclusions that the theorist believes it does. Unfortunately, however, it does not. Let us go through the methodological problems involved at the outset so it can be explained why;

1. Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that has been sneaked in; IDs critique makes a category error. It attempts to treat as empirical the endeavours of the speculative reason in areas of Ontology.
   
2. It cannot get you to the existence of God; that conclusion will never follow from its premises.
   
3. Assuming metaphysical naturalism, in attempting to disprove metaphysical naturalism.
   

Whilst Intelligent Design theorists do tell us something, they do not give us the conclusion that they think they do. They can only give us the conclusion "there is something wrong with naturalism", which is something I'd concede but there are far better ways of doing it. As Intelligent Design appears to offer no reason for us to even take it seriously as a Philosophical argument; it appears to be of little use in the field of Apologetics and Natural Theology.

As to the third; now Evolution as defined for this preliminary analysis is synonymous with "naturalist evolution". Please take note that I am NOT attempting to refute the biological phenomenon termed Evolution, the metaphysical naturalism that is sneaked in by modern New Atheist commentators, however, is troubling. The idea that the mutations are definitively 'random', and without purpose, is a staple mark of naturalist evolution. The question must be asked though; can efficient causation (in a highly watered down form) act without an end? This idea doesn't appear to be coherent; for does the heart not pump blood, to maintain the health of the body? Are the sensory organs not ordered towards the actuation of the sensitive faculty? There is more that can be said; Edward Feser has done an extended look at "scientism" on his blog on a series of posts aimed at Rosenberg here. Whilst theologically materialism was condemned as heresy at the First Vatican Council; so a naturalist position is untenable and indefensible for Catholics. Also Edward Feser has two recent posts on this very topic here and here, which deserve a plug.

I Answer That; the development of the biological species, and the body of the human being, via the phenomenon of Evolution happened along teleological lines. The Principle of Finality (PF) can be formulated "every agent acts for an end" where "agent" refers to an efficient cause whilst "end" or "telos" refers to the agents Final Cause (effect or ultimate effect); I have already given example elsewhere. In technical jargon (for those that are a fan of that); potency is always potency for some specific act and not another. So fire has the potency to burn, whilst ice has the potency to cool. Therefore; through the intrinsic teleology of substances, there is no contradiction between the biological phenomenon of evolution and the teachings of the Fathers and our Holy Mother Church. Whether or not the existence of intrinsic teleology in substances necessitates an intelligent origin is the purpose of Aquinas Fifth Way; which is a deductive argument that gets us all the way to the God of Classical Theism, making Intelligent Design wholly redundant. Edward Feser defended the Fifth Way in his paper "Between Aristotle and William Paley; Aquinas' Fifth Way", and highlighted the stark differences between Aquinas' Teleological Argument and Intelligent Design.

I, therefore, conclude; this is only a cursory analysis and is more of an introduction and my own ponderings on the matter rather than a devastating criticism on Philosophical grounds. It does, however, reveal that the wrong questions are being asked in the debate. Instead of presupposing the same framework as the Naturalists the assumptions in regards to fundamental Ontology that Naturalism makes appears to be our proper target. The Church has an amazing intellectual tradition that nurtured the Scholastic school of Philosophy and Theology; we already have the ammunition to take on the New Atheism, we have no need for the problematic doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design. We have the Doctor Communis.